AFD Review: Melody Maker, July 1987

[RussTCB]

I follow a music fb page that just posted this review of AFD. I'd never read it before but they were right, these guys are going nowhere! 

"Of course they're dreadful. What's more surprising is that so many members of the press, who on most other days of the week could be trusted to understand things, seemed to be surprised that Guns N' Roses aren't fun. How, one wonders could they ever have expected that five LA skinnies with tattoos and tight trousers would have offered any hope or even fear for rock? Guns N' Roses, perhaps more than any other limp cock rockers, do exactly, EXACTLY what you expect.

The inside cover has a picture of an android selling toy robots next to a rape victim with her knickers round her knees. Above them a monster that might have come from one of Hieronymus Bosch's off days waggles its tongue in what I suppose is meant to be a gesture of lasciviousness. This is Guns N' Roses' idea of depravity, the furthest they can take the sleaze towards outrage. Now obviously only someone who's been living in a small box for their entire lives would ever even feel the slightest twinge of horror at all the studied disgust. The rest of the population of the world will snicker. A lot.

The best thing about Guns N' Roses is that they have a guitarist called Slash and another called Izzy Stradlin. The worst thing is everything else but most of all the music. Welcome To The Jungle is the first song and as good a demonstration as any of what the band likes to do with their noise. Basically this consists of playing all the instruments very loud and very carefully along the kick ass school of things, nodding towards sentimentality but never so much that people might think they're soft. It sounds like someone's spooning broken glass and custard into your ears. Sweet Child O' Mine and Rocket Queen fill other bits of the record up with pretty much more of the same, giving whole new depths to the concept of variety.

It's a gruelling business wading through their creations, trying to think of some world where what they do could be seen as having even the slightest point, looking for signs that beneath the skulls and the shades there's a suggestion they can do something to thrill. The world is probably their house and the thrill, splitting up. The rest as they say, is crap.

When the great book of pop comes to be written, Guns N' Roses will have forgotten their library ticket."

https://web.musicaficionado.com/main.html#!/article/were_the_charts_wrong_about_appetite_for_destruction_by_rocksbackpages?invitedBy=rocksbackpages&utm_source=facebook&utm_campaign=fanpage

[FuriousStyles]

and Written by Paul Mathur

 

[EvanG]

Album reviews are always just one person's opinion, and everyone has a different taste, you can't argue that. I remember that Weezer's Pinkerton was considered the second worst album of the year in 1996 by Rolling Stone magazine. For a lot of people, me included, it is by far their best album and even one of the best alternative guitar records from the 90s.

[moreblack]

That's not the guy Axl threatens to beat up at the Marquee show is it?

[Carburetta]

I'm pretty sure Kerrang gave it a bad review too (one other popular mag anyway). My feelings are that reviewers who get things this badly wrong shouldn't work again in that field.

[Mendez]

They are totally right. This band will never go anywhere!

[FuriousStyles]

7 minutes ago, Mendez said:

They are totally right. This band will never go anywhere!

I bet they'll sucker some bozo to buy a VIP package with a presale code acquired by purchasing a seperate fanclub membership...and then the presale code WON'T EVEN WORK!

 

[WAR41]

48 minutes ago, Carburetta said:

I'm pretty sure Kerrang gave it a bad review too (one other popular mag anyway). My feelings are that reviewers who get things this badly wrong shouldn't work again in that field.

I actually agree with you 110%.  If you're unable to at least acknowledge that something is unique, then you clearly aren't fit for the job.  It doesn't mean you have to like it, but to not be able to say "wow, this record is  different than anything we've heard from this genre before, but that doesn't necessarily mean its good" then you shouldn't be critiquing anyone.       

[dgnr]

Sorry not sorry 

 

[Jane M.]

2 hours ago, RussTCB said:

The best thing about Guns N' Roses is that they have a guitarist called Slash and another called Izzy Stradlin.

The only part worth reading.

[BlueJean Baby]

Wow......I wonder if this guy ever got his head outta his ass...or was it so far up there that thirty years later, it's still there...

[Len Cnut]

The review is typical of its time from music magazines of the day, rock n roll was not being given an easy time, especially magazines like Melody Maker who were supposed to be like contemporary, fingers-on-the-pulse cutting edge sort of thing, so they were never gonna give stuff leaning towards more classic rock an easy time.  I mean 1987 in England you're talking about The Stone Roses, bands doing new things, the rave scene and Madchester, GnR came off as very old hat at that particular point in time.  Ever since punk in 76 this sort of rock n roll had stopped getting an easy time in the music papers, the sorts of magazine that Gunses initial core audience were more likely to be sniffin' around would be Raw and stuff like that.

GnR are like John Denver in a way, slated by critics but still sell millions of records because there is an audience out there for it who don't care necessarily about whats contemporary or cool and are more interested in like...just what sounds good to em.  Guns came along at a weird time really, even for America which was like...alternative was just about reaching a boil in 87 having followed on from Hardcore etc.  Guns as a band shouldn't've really happened, which is kinda great really, i love stuff like that in history, these weird anomalies that occur that are contrary to the projected path, makes life interesting.

Edited December 22, 2016 by Len Cnut

[RussTCB]

Personally, I love reading stuff like this. I've looked up plenty of reviews from the time of release for some of my favorite records. It's always neat to read someone else's point of view from when it was fresh. This one in particular is more humorous to me just because the guy was so wrong.

[bigpoop]

3 hours ago, moreblack said:

That's not the guy Axl threatens to beat up at the Marquee show is it?

I don't remember any threats but he says "I think it was the Melody Maker that called us weak AC/DC. I ain't no Bon Scott but that's a Whole Lotta Rosie to me".  Who knew!  

But the Marquee show were in June anyway so he wouldn't have been talking about this.

[J Dog]

2 hours ago, Len Cnut said:

The review is typical of its time from music magazines of the day, rock n roll was not being given an easy time, especially magazines like Melody Maker who were supposed to be like contemporary, fingers-on-the-pulse cutting edge sort of thing, so they were never gonna give stuff leaning towards more classic rock an easy time.  I mean 1987 in England you're talking about The Stone Roses, bands doing new things, the rave scene and Madchester, GnR came off as very old hat at that particular point in time.  Ever since punk in 76 this sort of rock n roll had stopped getting an easy time in the music papers, the sorts of magazine that Gunses initial core audience were more likely to be sniffin' around would be Raw and stuff like that.

GnR are like John Denver in a way, slated by critics but still sell millions of records because there is an audience out there for it who don't care necessarily about whats contemporary or cool and are more interested in like...just what sounds good to em.  Guns came along at a weird time really, even for America which was like...alternative was just about reaching a boil in 87 having followed on from Hardcore etc.  Guns as a band shouldn't've really happened, which is kinda great really, i love stuff like that in history, these weird anomalies that occur that are contrary to the projected path, makes life interesting.

That part about them coming along at a weird time and how they really shouldn't have happened is 100% on point. Add to that the fact they actually survived into the 90s.

[AxlsFavoriteRose]

2 hours ago, Len Cnut said:

The review is typical of its time from music magazines of the day, rock n roll was not being given an easy time, especially magazines like Melody Maker who were supposed to be like contemporary, fingers-on-the-pulse cutting edge sort of thing, so they were never gonna give stuff leaning towards more classic rock an easy time.  I mean 1987 in England you're talking about The Stone Roses, bands doing new things, the rave scene and Madchester, GnR came off as very old hat at that particular point in time.  Ever since punk in 76 this sort of rock n roll had stopped getting an easy time in the music papers, the sorts of magazine that Gunses initial core audience were more likely to be sniffin' around would be Raw and stuff like that.

GnR are like John Denver in a way, slated by critics but still sell millions of records because there is an audience out there for it who don't care necessarily about whats contemporary or cool and are more interested in like...just what sounds good to em.  Guns came along at a weird time really, even for America which was like...alternative was just about reaching a boil in 87 having followed on from Hardcore etc.  Guns as a band shouldn't've really happened, which is kinda great really, i love stuff like that in history, these weird anomalies that occur that are contrary to the projected path, makes life interesting.

that could make that their next album name..."Anomoly"

[Len Cnut]

Just now, AxlsFavoriteRose said:

that could make that their next album name..."Anomoly"

I think it's time for a self titled personally, fitting on a number of levels, firstly it's become clear that that name has a great deal more mileage in it than it looked like in the Chi Dem era, secondly cuz the old boys (or some of em) are back, it'd be like some kinda statement of intent almost.  Something really plain for an album cover too, two colours at most, black and gold maybe, or white and silver, Guns n Roses embossed lettering somewheres.

[AxlsFavoriteRose]

i vote white and silver 

[Len Cnut]

1 minute ago, AxlsFavoriteRose said:

i vote white and silver 

Yeah, black and gold would be a bit Rocky Balboa wouldn't it?

[AxlsFavoriteRose]

yeah....

[Silverburst80]

2 hours ago, Len Cnut said:

The review is typical of its time from music magazines of the day, rock n roll was not being given an easy time, especially magazines like Melody Maker who were supposed to be like contemporary, fingers-on-the-pulse cutting edge sort of thing, so they were never gonna give stuff leaning towards more classic rock an easy time.  I mean 1987 in England you're talking about The Stone Roses, bands doing new things, the rave scene and Madchester, GnR came off as very old hat at that particular point in time.  Ever since punk in 76 this sort of rock n roll had stopped getting an easy time in the music papers, the sorts of magazine that Gunses initial core audience were more likely to be sniffin' around would be Raw and stuff like that.

GnR are like John Denver in a way, slated by critics but still sell millions of records because there is an audience out there for it who don't care necessarily about whats contemporary or cool and are more interested in like...just what sounds good to em.  Guns came along at a weird time really, even for America which was like...alternative was just about reaching a boil in 87 having followed on from Hardcore etc.  Guns as a band shouldn't've really happened, which is kinda great really, i love stuff like that in history, these weird anomalies that occur that are contrary to the projected path, makes life interesting.

They really were a people power kinda band all round, if being perceived as a hair metal band was bad enough at the time having your own label stop backing you and MTV refusing to play your videos would stop most bands dead in their tracks. Meant to be i suppose.

[StrangerInThisTown]

This is gold. Also check out the initially negative reviews of Back In Black when it came out

[Italian girl]

Forward-looking review

[Towelie]

Well, to be fair, this reviewer guy might still think GNR are crap, so although he got it wrong about GNR being forgotten, he may still stand by his opinion.

Music critics are human like the rest of us, we don't all like the same shit. There's hundreds of bands and artists I hate who have sold gazillion albums and I couldn't name you one song from them that I rate. Does the fact that they've sold tonnes of records make my opinion wrong? Nah, my opinion is the only one that matters to me and if I say AC/DC are shitter than a roast without gravy then that's gospel, at least to me.